Category Archives: Bush

The Winning Trump Ticket & Cabinet (Part I)

Bush, Crime, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Justice, libertarianism, Republicans, Ron Paul, UN

“The Winning Trump Ticket & Cabinet” (Part I) is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

If Donald J. Trump wishes to lessen the impact of his disappointing second in the Iowa caucuses and walk back the tack he’s taken with Ted Cruz—he must begin to think big and talk big.

Loud in not necessarily big.

Call it triangulation, a concept associated with Bill Clinton’s successful strategies, or call it “the art of the deal”: It’s time for Trump to DO IT.

To this end, Trump must quit the “we don’t win anymore” formulaic rhapsody, and start fleshing out substantive positions. A pragmatist does so by introducing the people he’ll be recruiting to “Make America Great Again.”

To Cruz belongs the Trump Department of Justice portfolio. Offering Justice to Cruz allows Trump to both put Ted in his place as unsuited to the presidency; while simultaneously making him part of Team Trump and repairing that relationship.

Ted is too soft to be US president in these troubled times. But he’d make a spectacular attorney general in charge of DOJ.

There’s a reason George W. Bush hates Ted Cruz. In 2008, Cruz gave America reason to cue the mariachi band and celebrate the death of detritus José Medellín.

As part of a gangbanger initiation rite, Medellín had raped (in every way possible), strangled, slashed, and stomped two young Texan girls to death.

“In Texas,” to quote another Ron from the Lone Star State, “we have the death penalty and we use it. If you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back.”

Bush 43 would wrestle a crocodile for a criminal alien. Backed by Bush—and on behalf of Medellín and other killer compadres awaiting a similar fate—Mexico promptly sued the US over procedural technicalities in the International Court of Justice. The president ordered Texas to halt the execution of murderer and rapist Medellín.

Texas’ heroic solicitor general said no.

Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court. There, he bested Bush and his lickspittles. As the Conservative Review gloated, Cruz “won the case, 6-to-3.” He had sought justice for Americans against a president who subjugated them to international courts. Ted, moreover, was forever gracious about Bush; Bush and his bambino bro routinely slime Ted. (In trashing Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Trump is in bad company.) …

…Read the rest.“The Winning Trump Ticket & Cabinet” (Part I) is the current column, now on WND.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

The Bogus Bush Doctrine Alive And Well-Exploited By All Demopublicans

Bush, Democrats, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Republicans, Terrorism

The aversion Americans have of dying by Muslim in America, all politicians assuage by promising to bomb Syria and Iraq or to brainwash Middle Eastern populations about democracy. Tying attacks like San Bernadino in the US to a war on ISIS and proxies in the Middle East is The Bush Doctrine.

The dumb Bush dictum of fighting them over there so they don’t come here is alive and well-exploited by every fork-tongued politician on the Republican and Democratic sides, other than Donald Trump, who distills the issue logically.

Barack Obama routinely deflects questions about death by Muslim in San Bernadino with answers about keeping “up the pressure, our air campaign will continue to hit ISIL harder than ever.” And oh, “It is very difficult for us to detect lone wolf plots or plots involving a husband and wife, in this case, because despite the incredible vigilance of our law enforcement and homeland security, it’s not that different from us trying to detect the next mass shooter. You don’t always see it.”

Every time John Kasich or Chris Christie or Marco Rubio and the interchangeable rest are asked about death by Muslim in the US; they too whip out the Bush Doctrine. Over to the disgusting Kasich:

BLITZER: Governor Kasich, one of the killers in San Bernardino was an American who was not on anyone’s watch list. How are you going to find that radicalized person and stop another such attack?

KASICH: Well, first of all, Wolf, I said last February that we needed to have people on the ground, troops on the ground in a coalition similar to what we had in the first Gulf War.

I remember when the Egyptian ambassador to the United States stood in the Rose Garden and pledged Arab commitment to removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Before we came out here tonight, I am told that the Saudis have organized 34 countries who want to join in the battle against terrorism.

First and foremost, we need to go and destroy ISIS. And we need to do this with our Arab friends and our friends in Europe.

And when I see they have a climate conference over in Paris, they should have been talking about destroying ISIS because they are involved in virtually every country, you know, across this world. …

Americans must reject this illogic.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: On Refugee Reparations & Paul Ryan’s Weasel Words

Barack Obama, Bush, Constitution, Critique, Democracy, Hillary Clinton, Law, libertarianism

Bush, Cheney, Clinton and Obama started the wars that eventually caused entire Middle-Eastern populations to be on the move. Personally, I think these American politicians and their respective cabals (Samantha Power and the Rices, Condi and Susan) should pay reparations, out of their personal fortunes, to Iraqi, Syrian and Afghani refugees. No qualifying test required.

Libertarian justice aside, Laura Ingraham has been ahead of Ann Coulter in evolving away from establishment Republicans and their weasel words, as was noted in this space, in July of 2014. Now Ingraham is doing her listeners a service by alerting them to how “Paul Ryan is using the language of the Left to advocate a new Republican way forward”:

“By opposing a ‘religious test’ for refugees, the new House Speaker Paul Ryan is ‘using the language of the left,’ ‘the language of Obama.'”

“Nobody is talking about a religious test,” counters Ingraham, “we are talking about a test of leadership, for the American people to finally see their leaders—Obama and the Republicans—standing up for the American people.”

Not quite. A religious test is inherent in refugee legislation, as religious persecution is grounds for a request for asylum. However, and by the sound of it, Americans are sick and tired of laws passed in contravention of their rights and interests.

More materially, there is nothing in the thousands of bills dreamed up by representatives, annually, that remotely approximates the will of a self-governing people and their exclusive interests. I mean, poor, working-class whites are dying in inordinate numbers in the US. Who do these local refugees turn to for redress? The left-liberal establishment (GOP included), which finds the exotic more sympathetic?

UPDATE: As Christians die across the Muslim world, America’s leaders feel the urgency of importing more Muslims:

Jeff Sessions (R-AL), “chairmen of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations and Immigration and the National Interest subcommittees respectively, issued the following statement, 11/17. It’s a little soft, but better than most:

… Under our nation’s current policy, the President simply brings in as many refugees as he wants. Refugees are entitled to access all major welfare programs, and they can also draw benefits directly from the Medicare and Social Security disability and retirement trust funds – taking those funds straight from the pockets of American retirees who paid into these troubled funds all of their lives.

Our immigration and refugee policies must serve the interests of our nation and protect the security of the American people. After admitting 1.5 million migrants from Muslim countries on lifetime visas since 9/11, it is time to assist in relocating Muslim migrants within their home region rather than relocating large numbers to the United States. It simply cannot be our policy to encourage a mass migration of entire populations from their homelands, a strategy that will only further destabilize the region and bring threats of terrorism deep inside our shores.” …

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Jeb Bush’s Kaput. Why Aren’t Wrong-All-The-Time Commentators Fired, Too?

Bush, Justice, libertarianism, Media

S.E. Idiot aka Cupp, together with all establishmentarians, has been insisting that, to quote the noise-maker last week, “The safe money is on Jeb Bush.” He’s the politically smart candidate to back, she said the other day.

In fairness, S.E. Idiot is one among many white-noise generators on television. (You’ll find everything you need to know about Cupp “commentator” in “Just Another Mouth in the Republican Fellatio Machine.”) While Cupp is not nearly as off-putting, banal and over-the-top as Jedediah Bila, she’s up there. I recall how her fans on Taki’s cussed me when the above piece was published. Now they likely agree. (The same people wanted me fired from WND for opposing the invasion from hell, starting in Sept., 2002; now, not so much.)

Jeb Bush’s campaign is over, toots. It was moribund when Cupp first misspoke. What she meant is that she thought Jeb was the smart choice. Is the woman (and others like her) engaged in Freudian wish fulfillment, namely “the satisfaction of a desire through an involuntary thought process”?

Isn’t such a messy habit of mind cause for firing when your thought process is what, ostensibly, got you hired?

This column has been consistently predictive. The punditocracy is consistency unpredictive. When do they get fired and we–I’ve linked to good guy William N. Grigg, as an example—get hired? Wait a sec. I know the answer: when we agree to a lobotomy; when we ditch our non-partisan principles for theirs.

Seriously, when will America pull the plug on these pathetic pundits and seek out those who have a record of accurate predictions on the defining issues of the day?

To plagiarize a 2004 column:

“Suppose your doctor misdiagnoses your condition – he tells you that six months hence you’ll be stone-cold dead, pushing up the daisies. As it turns out, however, you did not have leukemia after all, but were only suffering from Lyme disease. Would you not consider switching practitioners?

Say your stockbroker’s picks leave you with a portfolio more volatile than Vesuvius and an eviscerated bank account. Short of buying shares in a Baghdad bed and breakfast, he did everything wrong. Would you still entrust him with your money?

Imagine you’re a fisherman. Your local weatherman predicts calm, but you lose your boat in treacherous seas. (Thankfully your life is spared.) Then he forecasts a storm, but the sea is as calm as glass, and you miss out on the biggest catch ever. How long before you stop trusting his “expertise”?

These analogies came to mind as I listened to a different sort of failed “expert,” for whom public goodwill runs eternal.”

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint